Supreme Court Backs FCC Over Suspicious Valuation Report In Ambre Case

The Supreme Court of Mauritius has dismissed an application by Verde Frontier Solutions Ltd and its directors to overturn a criminal freeze on assets linked to the controversial sale of the Hôtel Ambre.

In a ruling delivered on Friday, 13 February, Mr Justice Azam Neerooa upheld the Financial Crimes Commission’s (FCC) right to maintain a Criminal Attachment Order first issued in March 2025.

The decision keeps several million MUR (Mauritian Rupees) blocked across the personal and corporate accounts of the Noonaram family and their associated firms.

The Case for Seizure

The legal battle pitted the FCC against four applicants: Verde Frontier Solutions Ltd, Vendi Group Ltd, and directors Dirish Kumar Noonaram and Venna Noonaram.

The court heard that the freeze extends to the couple’s personal accounts and those belonging to their minor children.

The FCC argued that there are “reasonable and objective grounds” to believe the funds represent proceeds of crime. Key suspicions raised during the investigation include:

• Price Discrepancy: A significant gap between the share purchase price recommended by the Mauritius Investment Corporation (MIC) and the final amount paid.
• Backdating: Allegations that a valuation report was backdated.
• The “Kuros” Link: A related transaction deemed suspicious by investigators.
• Money Laundering Risks: Concerns regarding undocumented payments and potential money laundering.

The Defence Strategy

The applicants maintained that the seized funds were legitimate fees earned as financial consultants during the sale of Eastcoast Hotel Investment Ltd, the entity that owns Hôtel Ambre.

They presented contracts, invoices, and bank transfers to demonstrate a clear audit trail, asserting the money was used for debt settlement, investments, and declared taxes.

However, Justice Neerooa noted that once money is transferred between accounts, it loses its “identifiable character,” making it impossible to distinguish between legitimate income and illicit funds at this stage.

Judicial Reasoning

In his judgement, the Justice emphasised that a Criminal Attachment Order is a protective measure rather than a punitive one.

“The primary objective is to protect and preserve property suspected of being linked to an offence during an ongoing investigation,” the court noted.

Under current law, such seizures are temporary, typically limited to 12 months but extendable to three years if the interests of justice require it.

Impact on the Noonaram Family

While the directors argued the freeze caused significant hardship for their businesses and their children’s daily lives, the court found no “concrete and direct prejudice” had been proven.

The judge highlighted that the FCC had already implemented measures to mitigate the impact, allowing for monthly withdrawals to cover salaries and essential living expenses.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the necessity of preserving suspect funds during a financial crimes probe outweighed the inconvenience to the applicants.

Source: l’Express